fedrules wrote:I don't think the media can be accused of whipping up hysteria to be honest. The BBC has frequently stressed that the police, whilst advising women to take 'normal' safety precautions, have discovered nothing to suggest that a serial killer is at work. Of course, there are always those who will overreact to stories like this one, in the same way as one of my brother's neighbours said they would never go to Portugal because of Maddie's 'abduction'. As the police seem to be giving out a lot of mixed messages at the moment, I can understand why young women feel scared to walk home alone. It's not very reassuring to be told that Jo's killer(s) is / are still at large, even though they are also telling people that a lot may hinge on forensic tests..which kind of suggests they know who killed Jo. There is much public interest in this case which is why the media responds by milking it as much as possible.

I think the fact that Jo was such an ordinary, pretty, likeable girl whose parents made their desperate appeal just before Christmas, has meant the story has struck a chord with the public. The sad discovery of her body on Christmas Day, as luckier families gathered to celebrate together, has added to this feeling.

Still waiting for a reply regarding people being found years down the line after cadaver dogs detecting death where they were last seen.

Also you still haven't given evidence that the mccanns paid their mortgage payments back into the so called fund.

In fairness I think SS did answer the latter point by trying to argue that by foregoing a personal payment in favour of a fund payment by the Express (not that it was ever confirmed a personal payment was on the cards) the mortagage payments should be somehow deemed to be repaid. (No doubt he will correct me if that is not what he said or if my shorthand falls short of his explanation).

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

I would like to point out that stating that SS's argument was spurious was not a little dig but a statement of fact.

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

I would like to point out that stating that SS's argument was spurious was not a little dig but a statement of fact.

I was quoting what San's said in his Post!, not your Post, San's used the word spurious in his Post, and that it was in good company on this Forum, by San's saying spurious was in good company on this Forum, mean's San's does think that the Member's here are not genuine, San's did not have to say that did he.I do not come here to row with anyone, I never have, but if I feel someone is having a go at the Member's here of which I am one then I will speak my mind.

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

Sans is losing it. They tried to be the sweet voice of reason in the beginning. Now the true colours are coming out and they are becoming another run of the mill disguntled individual who resorts to goading others to satisify their need for superiority.

Seems Mr Jeffries already has contacted solicitors over it and there is mention of not a fair trial if he is charged.

SUSPECT CHRIS JEFFERIES HAD NAME ‘BLACKENED’ CLAIM LAWYERSThursday January 6,2011By John Chapman

MURDER suspect Chris Jefferies has had his name “blackened” and “privacy invaded”, it has been claimed.Lawyers representing the former Clifton College teacher, 65, said they were “extremely concerned” about how he had been portrayed in the media.

They claimed his right to a fair trial may be “ultimately prejudiced” by reports into his character and background.Rhys Mardon, of London-based Stokoe Partnership, who acted on Mr Jefferies’ behalf during interviews with detectives, said information from potential witnesses had been published.

He said: “We are extremely concerned about how our client is being portrayed in the media, and how material of potential relevance to the investigation has been published.

“His name has been blackened and his privacy invaded. This may ultimately prejudice his right to, and any prospect of, a fair trial.”

Mr Jefferies, who is vice-chairman of his local Neighbourhood Watch, was arrested at his home last Thursday on suspicion of murder. He was released on bail pending further inquiries after three days of questioning at Trinity Road police station in Bristol.

He is currently on police bail and believed to be staying in Bath.

Friends say he is distressed over the accusation and will seek “massive damages” for wrongful arrest.

Retired Mr Jefferies’ house was forensically examined by police and two cars – a Chrysler and a Volvo originally thought to belong to him – were towed away from the street outside the flats.

But it emerged yesterday that he was looking after the silver Chrysler Neon LX for Irving Steggles, 65, a church minister in South Africa.

Retired classics master Geoffrey Hardyman, 78, a friend of Mr Jefferies for 40 years, said: “No one has heard from Chris since police released him. We don’t know when he might be back.”

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

I would like to point out that stating that SS's argument was spurious was not a little dig but a statement of fact.

I was quoting what San's said in his Post!, not your Post, San's used the word spurious in his Post, and that it was in good company on this Forum, by San's saying spurious was in good company on this Forum, mean's San's does think that the Member's here are not genuine, San's did not have to say that did he.I do not come here to row with anyone, I never have, but if I feel someone is having a go at the Member's here of which I am one then I will speak my mind.

Jesus wept. Some people take themselves So seriously!

AA - go and have a look at Chris' post on page 68 of this thread. In it he used the word spurious in relation to my post. I used it back in a similar context. IT WAS A JOKE!!!!

So stop running round like a virgin at an orgy, getting your knickers in a twist.

Still waiting for a reply regarding people being found years down the line after cadaver dogs detecting death where they were last seen.

Also you still haven't given evidence that the mccanns paid their mortgage payments back into the so called fund.

In fairness I think SS did answer the latter point by trying to argue that by foregoing a personal payment in favour of a fund payment by the Express (not that it was ever confirmed a personal payment was on the cards) the mortagage payments should be somehow deemed to be repaid. (No doubt he will correct me if that is not what he said or if my shorthand falls short of his explanation).

Of course it was a totally spurious argument.

Chris may have initially used the word spurious, and sans may have been replying to Chris, but this is not a private forum between two posters, we all read it, and sans comment was meant to wind a few of us up, joke or not, and sans knows what he is doing. However sans, if you want to 'joke about us to Chris like we are not here' you must expect a backlash from some. I know you are just winding up though and refuse to bite.

Several of the tabloids seem to be leading again in tomorrows papers with what look mostly like 'nothing' stories.Sun putting up 50k reward and the Star think they have someone who knows who done it (well they would wouldnt they).

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

I would like to point out that stating that SS's argument was spurious was not a little dig but a statement of fact.

I was quoting what San's said in his Post!, not your Post, San's used the word spurious in his Post, and that it was in good company on this Forum, by San's saying spurious was in good company on this Forum, mean's San's does think that the Member's here are not genuine, San's did not have to say that did he.I do not come here to row with anyone, I never have, but if I feel someone is having a go at the Member's here of which I am one then I will speak my mind.

Jesus wept. Some people take themselves So seriously!

AA - go and have a look at Chris' post on page 68 of this thread. In it he used the word spurious in relation to my post. I used it back in a similar context. IT WAS A JOKE!!!!

So stop running round like a virgin at an orgy, getting your knickers in a twist.

I can assure you I am not a virgin and maybe I didn't have any knickers on at the time I wrote that Post .That is all I am going to say on the subject, as this Thread is about poor Jo Yeates, not for bickering!.

Lioned wrote:Several of the tabloids seem to be leading again in tomorrows papers with what look mostly like 'nothing' stories.Sun putting up 50k reward and the Star think they have someone who knows who done it (well they would wouldnt they).

Just read that Star article. It's a psychic who claims to have drawn the killers a few days before Joanna went missing.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

Sandi wrote:Seems Mr Jeffries already has contacted solicitors over it and there is mention of not a fair trial if he is charged.

SUSPECT CHRIS JEFFERIES HAD NAME ‘BLACKENED’ CLAIM LAWYERSThursday January 6,2011By John Chapman

MURDER suspect Chris Jefferies has had his name “blackened” and “privacy invaded”, it has been claimed.Lawyers representing the former Clifton College teacher, 65, said they were “extremely concerned” about how he had been portrayed in the media.

They claimed his right to a fair trial may be “ultimately prejudiced” by reports into his character and background.Rhys Mardon, of London-based Stokoe Partnership, who acted on Mr Jefferies’ behalf during interviews with detectives, said information from potential witnesses had been published.

He said: “We are extremely concerned about how our client is being portrayed in the media, and how material of potential relevance to the investigation has been published.

“His name has been blackened and his privacy invaded. This may ultimately prejudice his right to, and any prospect of, a fair trial.”

Mr Jefferies, who is vice-chairman of his local Neighbourhood Watch, was arrested at his home last Thursday on suspicion of murder. He was released on bail pending further inquiries after three days of questioning at Trinity Road police station in Bristol.

He is currently on police bail and believed to be staying in Bath.

Friends say he is distressed over the accusation and will seek “massive damages” for wrongful arrest.

Retired Mr Jefferies’ house was forensically examined by police and two cars – a Chrysler and a Volvo originally thought to belong to him – were towed away from the street outside the flats.

But it emerged yesterday that he was looking after the silver Chrysler Neon LX for Irving Steggles, 65, a church minister in South Africa.

Retired classics master Geoffrey Hardyman, 78, a friend of Mr Jefferies for 40 years, said: “No one has heard from Chris since police released him. We don’t know when he might be back.”

Today the daily mail is speculating on the murderer of being a 'facebook' friend... Considering it was either someone she knew, or a serial killer/rapist (or killers if the police want to go down the asian crime gang theory) then this is considerably lazy journalism or lazy police work considering most people who know someone are connected by facebook!

Unless jo was chatty about being on her own for the weekend but surely police would have said it was on her facebook page, unless it was on gregs in which case mutual friends would be the route to look at.

The police are giving the impression of leaving all possible options open. It's interesting how this case started with the most likely suspects i.e. the boyfriend or the eccentric landlord and has since expanded to include far less plausible perpetrators like Asian gangs or Facebook friends. It wouldn't surprise me so much if Jo had told people Greg was away, especially friends. Why wouldn't she ? In 99.9% of cases this wouldn't really be risky..

In the McCann case, things seemed to go in the opposite direction, at least from what was reported in the UK media i.e first the stranger abduction theory, then the 'weird' neighbour and finally, the most statistically likely culprits, Maddie's parents...

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

I would like to point out that stating that SS's argument was spurious was not a little dig but a statement of fact.

I was quoting what San's said in his Post!, not your Post, San's used the word spurious in his Post, and that it was in good company on this Forum, by San's saying spurious was in good company on this Forum, mean's San's does think that the Member's here are not genuine, San's did not have to say that did he.I do not come here to row with anyone, I never have, but if I feel someone is having a go at the Member's here of which I am one then I will speak my mind.

Jesus wept. Some people take themselves So seriously!

AA - go and have a look at Chris' post on page 68 of this thread. In it he used the word spurious in relation to my post. I used it back in a similar context. IT WAS A JOKE!!!!

So stop running round like a virgin at an orgy, getting your knickers in a twist.

Sans - I'm sure you are going for a record number of red stripes and you're very close to 200, so I've given you a green one, just to keep you away from your target for a while. Also unusual to read any of your posts which almost make me smile, but that one did.

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

I would like to point out that stating that SS's argument was spurious was not a little dig but a statement of fact.

I was quoting what San's said in his Post!, not your Post, San's used the word spurious in his Post, and that it was in good company on this Forum, by San's saying spurious was in good company on this Forum, mean's San's does think that the Member's here are not genuine, San's did not have to say that did he.I do not come here to row with anyone, I never have, but if I feel someone is having a go at the Member's here of which I am one then I will speak my mind.

Jesus wept. Some people take themselves So seriously!

AA - go and have a look at Chris' post on page 68 of this thread. In it he used the word spurious in relation to my post. I used it back in a similar context. IT WAS A JOKE!!!!

So stop running round like a virgin at an orgy, getting your knickers in a twist.

Sans - I'm sure you are going for a record number of red stripes and you're very close to 200, so I've given you a green one, just to keep you away from your target for a while. Also unusual to read any of your posts which almost make me smile, but that one did.